Monday, June 23, 2014

In my last post, Lawyers, Inc. vs. Faith, some folks suggested that the import of the Book of Mormon witnesses is lessened by the imitative adventure of James Strang and his witnesses who observed the non-miraculous existence of some much less valuable non-precious metal plates. Ironically, it's a fitting comparison to make since Strang himself was a lawyer and his exploits illustrate some of the things that skilled lawyers or other highly educated people can do when they seek to affect (as in misdirect) the faith of others.

Strang claimed that Joseph Smith had appointed him to be his successor, and showed some people a letter that he claimed was a letter of appointment from Joseph. There's no evidence I know of that Joseph ever said or advocated this, apart from Strang's letter. If the letter was a forgery, as seems highly probable, the tiny low-value plates lack evidence of being anything more than that. But wait, he had witnesses! Just like the witnesses to the gold plates, right? No, not like those witnesses.

Strang's witnesses first saw tiny plates that had been buried and dug out of the ground by the witnesses at a spot where Strang prophesied they would be found. But no one doubts that some metal plates existed, for they were not clearly miraculous and not beyond the abilities of that educated man to fabricate or hire out. Gold plates in the hands of Joseph Smith are quite a different matter, and it was gold that the witnesses saw, not the same common metal used in teaware and other items of his day. What the Eight Witnesses experienced already trumps Strang's imitative work, but nothing in his portfolio can even begin to compare with the sheer miraculous power of what the Three Witnesses experienced and affirmed throughout their lives: gold plates and other sacred relics, shown by a majestic angel, his feet not touching the ground, and then the voice of God adding to the witness of divinity. The witnesses of the gold plates testify to the physical tangible reality of the plates under ordinary light and also under miraculous circumstances. Both settings are important.

For Strang, seeking to obtain the same credentials as Joseph, imitating the discovery of plates was a "smart move" for this lawyer, but for Joseph, announcing the discovery of ancient writings on metal plates was ridiculous. Remember, Joseph showed his witnesses the gold plates many decades before the Darius plates and other ancient records on gold and other metal plates would be found. This was decades before the Mesoamerican practice of using stone boxes to preserve sacred items would be known. This was over a decade before the reality of ancient civilization in Mesoamerica would become widely known to the public (Humboldt and a few others notwithstanding). Strang was the imitator, Joseph was the groundbreaker, and importantly, what the witnesses testified to was quite different and has remarkably different meaning.

Strang's witnesses can be taken at face value, at least regarding the existence of the plates, though unlike Joseph's witnesses, not all would remain convinced that the story of the find was something grander than a man-made fraud. Yes, they saw something. Yes, it was made out of metal--apparently a common metal. Yes, there were some writings on the plates. Tiny plates, much smaller than the gold plates. But taking their witnesses at face value does not imply a divine origin for the plates or a divine call for Strang.

Strang, the educated lawyer, having impressed his witnesses with the buried plates, proceeded to "translate" them. The translation took roughly a decade--not bad, but that's a pace that pales with Joseph's rapid work of dictating the translation, unaided by other resources according to his scribes and others.

Strang, a lawyer seeking to provide evidence that he should be revered as a leader like Joseph, would translate his plates and strive to gain followers. But the story dwindles after that, while the evidences for the reality and plausibility of the Book of Mormon continue to grow in many ways. Those evidences include many witnesses who experienced both miraculous manifestations and mundane evidence for the tangible reality and divine origins of the sacred record, an ancient, Semitic record engraved on gold plates (or, more likely, a gold alloy such as the gold-copper alloy known as tumbaga that was widely used in ancient Mesoamerica, much lighter than gold itself, and which would give a stack of thin plates with Book of Mormon dimensions weighing about 60 pounds, as one of the witnesses recorded regarding their weight).

The first set, the three "Voree" or "Rajah Manchou" plates, were dug up by four "witnesses" whom Strang had brought to the appropriate site. Inscribed on both sides with illustrations and "writing," the Rajah Manchou plates were roughly 1.5 by 2.75 inches in size--small enough to fit in the palm of a hand or to carry in a pocket. Among the many who saw them was Stephen Post, who reported that they were brass and, indeed, that they resembled the French brass used in familiar kitchen kettles. "With all the faith & confidence that I could exercise," he wrote, "all that I could realize was that Strang made the plates himself, or at least that it was possible that he made them." One not altogether reliable source reports that most of the four witnesses to the Rajah Manchou plates ultimately repudiated their testimonies. The eighteen "Plates of Laban," likewise of brass and each about 7 3/8 by 9 inches, were first mentioned in 1849 and, in 1851, were seen by seven witnesses. Their testimony appeared at the front of The Book of the Law of the Lord, which Strang said he translated from the "Plates of Laban." (Work on the translation seems to have begun at least as early as April 1849. An 84-page version appeared in 1851; by 1856, it had reached 350 pages .) The statement of Strang's witnesses speaks of seeing the plates, but mentions nothing of any miraculous character. Nor did Strang supply any second set of corroborating testimony comparable to that of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon. One of the witnesses to the "Plates of Laban," Samuel P. Bacon, eventually denied the inspiration of Strang's movement and denounced it as mere "human invention." Another, Samuel Graham, later claimed that he had assisted Strang in the fabrication of the "Plates of Laban." The well-read Strang had been an editor and lawyer before his brief affiliation with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and his subsequent career as a schismatic leader. Thus, Strang's plates were much less numerous than those associated with Joseph Smith, his witnesses saw nothing supernatural, his translation required the better part of a decade rather than a little more than two months, and, unlike the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, Strang's witnesses did not remain faithful to their testimonies. [footnotes omitted]

Whatever you think of James Strang and his plates, he and his witnesses do not lessen the evidence provided by the Three Witnesses nor that from the Eight Witnesses and others for the reality of the gold plates of the Book of Mormon.

Unfortunately, the critics can't see a difference. As one put it in the comments section on my last post,

Oh, the Strangite one is my favorite. Has nearly the exact same
arguments for its validity as Mormonism, but we can dismiss Strangite
testimonies because, well, for all the reasons we can dismiss Mormon
testimonies.

I'm sure Jeff is 100% aware of it, too. It just
doesn't click. The brain doesn't work on logic when there are huge
emotional barriers.

This is not a difficult issue, IMHO. The reasons for not accepting James Strang's work as divine based on the weak evidence from the Strangite witnesses have little bearing on the Book of Mormon. The two cases do not involve "the exact same arguments." The Strangite witnesses are not parallels to the miraculous evidence from Book of Mormon witnesses. They do not provide the consistent, passionate, and lifelong credibility we have with the gold plates from men who often had much to lose and nothing to gain by standing as witnesses, even after falling away from the institutional Church. The Strangite witnesses are much more easily understood as men who actually saw real, fabricated plates, having been duped for a while by a skilled and well-read lawyer with a scheme to imitate Joseph. This does nothing to explain the origins of what Strang sought to imitate. Emotional barriers are not the issue here.

It's one thing to show some people a little set of plates carefully buried in the ground. It's quite another thing to have a majestic angel present them, and then, to remove all doubts from religious hysteria and frenzied minds, to have men under ordinary light see and handle actual gold plates that Joseph could not plausibly have fabricated. Joseph the uneducated farmboy wins this round against the skilled lawyer, and so do his witnesses.

79 comments:

FALSE. The fact that the 1604-1611 translators of the King James Bible ADDED words to make the English more readable are ALSO used in the BOM proves Smith used a KJV Bible.

"uneducated farmboy"

FALSE. The "uneducated farmboy" spin needs to stop. You would have us to believe Smith was illiterate. The fact is Smith grew up in a family of often-employed school teachers. He was well read and a quick examination of his journals and letters reveals an accomplished writer:

"We are under necessity to disappoint you this time for reasons which I shall mention hereafter, but trusting that your meeting may not be an unprofitable one May you all realize the necessity of getting together often to pray"

http://josephsmithpapers.org

Are these the musing of an "uneducated farm boy"? What uneducated farm boy keeps a journal? Did he suddenly become educated after the finding of the gold plates?

As for the KJV Bible, I do believe that it was used as an aid during the translation of Book of Mormon chapters that mirrored Bible teachings (e.g., 2 Nephi and 3 Nephi chapters). But those are only a few chapters in the book--so it wasn't that big of a resource.

I also must say that it's rare for me to hear someone refer to Joseph Smith as "an accomplished writer." Most writings from his time period used the complex sentence structure and vocabulary given in the example above. Have you ever tried to read some of his journals? It can be a nightmare. And what's more, a lot of his 'writings' were dictated, and the scribe would mercifully correct many of his errors, I'm sure.

"I do believe that it was used as an aid during the translation of Book of Mormon"

While I appreciate your admission to Smith's obvious use of the KJV Bible, what does this say to the reliability of Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery's testimony of Smith's translation process? Did they lie? Were they misled? Either he used a Bible or he didn't

Truth is, no one knows about the KJV language. There's a lot of it. There's also a lot of stuff that is NOT in the KJV. See the Ships of Tarshish stuff, and see Welch's analysis of the Sermon on the Mount language, which pretty clearly demonstrates that Third Nephi is not a slavish copy of the KJV. That's a fact conveniently ignored by the antis.

As for Joseph Smith's now not being an uneducated farm boy? It is to laugh! That has been one of the main drivers behind entire schools of anti mormon thought--That the Book of Momron is copied from Solomon Spaulding, or Sidney Rigdon--because Joseph Smith was clearly intellectually incapable of writing it. Now, suddenly, he's a professor or something.

Truth is--Joseph Smith started out uneducated. Up until after the Book of Mormon, he was pretty illiterate. But he rapidly got educated; indeed he learned Hebrew and many other subjects. His scientific writings are only now being shown to be accurate (his description of Spirit as "refined matter" unable to be seen is about a good description of modern day "Dark Matter" as you'll find)

In general, early 1800's era writers wrote much more complex than today. Read some of Edgar Allen Poe, and you will see that he writes at a very high level--even in his general commentary, such as critiques of other authors. Nathaniel Hawthorne, as well. Try reading the Federalist Papers, and many, many more. Basic English education was a lot more advanced than we do now.

But hey, the challenge that Joseph Smith issued still stands. Go write something that stands up to one of his revelations. See if you can beat God at writing. William E McLellin couldn't do it. Maybe you are smarter.....

Ohh, the BoM 8 witnesses are completely different because Strangites witnessed plates made out of different a material than the plates of the BoM 8 witnesses. The BoM 8 witnessed gold plates, well, … may be some different alloy because their testimonies unwittingly contradict gold dimensions, may be tumbaga, well we don’t really know what they were made out of. FACT: We do not know what either set of metallic plates was made out of, only that the Strangites openly put theirs on display for all to see until lost, while the BoM plates were not made available for any sort of serious inspection. But really? Do you even hear yourself? The unknown material of each set of plates makes the difference?

The constant contradictions are astounding. A supernatural vision is required. Again, you run away from explaining why the BoM 8 is valid being when there was no supernatural vision claim, despite mistaking an unknown alloy for gold.

You state that unauthenticated/unfounded rumors invalidate the Strangite plates, but unauthenticated/unfound rumors do not invalidate the BoM plates? Again, the double standard of your stuff smells different boggles objective minds. This behavior is probably best described as denial. Merely repeating what has already been exposed as contradictory does not a rejoinder make. What was your rejoinder to Anne Lee, Sacred Roll and Book, modern examples of mass apparitions, etc, I missed it.

With every choir preach we witness mounting evidence of incorrigible patterns of either self-hate (disdain for your own lawyer behavior) and denial (your stuff smells different (it doesn’t)) or blatant lawyer attempts at deception.

The choir and preacher are starting to lose their entertainment value and are rapidly deteriorating into an inane cacophony.

" Ironically, it's a fitting comparison to make since Strang himself was a lawyer and his exploits illustrate some of the things that skilled lawyers or other highly educated people can do when they seek to affect (as in misdirect) the faith of others."

This is hilarious. Lawyers--so exploitative in their ways. Glass looking money diggers who convince people they've found buried treasure, however--gosh, so much more credible!

Anonymous 3:10 - Reference Elder Eyring's explanation for why it doesn't matter what the Book of Abraham papyri actually said - as a prophet, JS could receive revelation at any time, no reference material was necessary.

Based on that explanation, all this talk about plates and witnesses is entirely irrelevant.

Strang had 10,000 people follow him to Michigan, which I would consider pretty strong evidence that the spirit told many people that Strang was a prophet. The rest of the peripheral issues are completely pointless.

It seems to me that you are clearly correct that the presence of the angel is a very different experience than finding some metal plates where Strang said that they would be.

In addition, the visit of the angel with plates and the physical-only manifestation both corroborate that Joseph had plates -- and the voice of God to which the 3 witnesses testified are rather convincing. It is obvious that Strang is a copy cat. In addition, the statement of Samuel Graham that he assisted Strang to make the plates is very convincing that Strang fraudulently created the plates. There is nothing remotely like that with any of the Book of Mormon witnesses.

Anonymous is off-base to try to make Joseph more learned than he was -- as if he read the entire Palmyra library and memorized the entire KJV. He could read and write, but anyone who has read his own handwritten journals can see just how unschooled and unlearned he really was. He could hardly structure a sentence.

And anonymous must be unaware of article like the Expansion Theory that fully explains the use of the KJV word for word. Further, the purpose of the plates is quite clear -- there cannot be a revelation of what is on the plates without plates and the plates serve as a link to the historically physical record that shows it took place in real time and space.

Jeff noted that Joseph Smith's translation was accomplished "unaided without other resources." All the witnesses who served as scribes--even unbelievers--noted that Joseph Smith had no other resources and that he dictated for hours at a time. The fact that KJV quotations (ver batim 50% of the time) is even more astounding. Why don't some of you try quoting several chapters of the sermon on the mount without any notes. I submit that the doctrinal revisions in the slight modifications alone add to the miraculous nature of Joseph Smith's feat.

And no, his scribes did not correct the text. Joseph Smith did; but the corrections are inconsequential. I have a red lined comparison between the 1830 and 1980 editions that show thousands of revisions--which clarify but leave the original meaning mostly intact.

Additionally, the BoM witnesses said the plates had the "appearance of gold."

"At least one modern source was indisputably used in the Book of Mormon — the King James Version of the Bible" "Joseph Smith clearly used the KJV Old Testament to render the Book of Mormon translation"

It seems pretty clear that the KJV language was used in the translation. It seems that the KJV language was closely followed whenever it was "good enough" or close enough, as if the goal was to stick to the language of scripture when possible. The many differences, though, are subtle, sometimes major, and often interesting. Still, the KJV was used as the baseline. But how it was used is unclear. The witnesses consistently report Joseph dictating the record without using notes or other resources. We don't know how Joseph obtained the words he dictated. We do have portions of the original manuscript and the printers manuscript, and the detailed scholarship of Royal Skousen on these records provides abundant support for the claims that it was verbally dictated and written by scribes. The process they observed is already suggestive of something remarkable taking place, even without considering the truly remarkable evidence that the record was on gold plates and for 3 of the witnesses, had divine origins confirmed by an angel. The difference between the original and the imitator here is profound, though impossible to see for some people. Maybe it's just those emotional barriers in the way, I don't know.

And in spite of the KJV language being used and the process being rather miraculous, I do not expect perfection. Some real mistakes are possible and inevitable. But I don't have a good explanation for the presence of what appear to be KJV errors. Would be great if errors did not enter in the process. The "without cause" error in the Sermon on the Mount is corrected, FYI, but I'm not sure about the state of others.

Okay, so someone is arguing that the BofM is what, I don't know... wrong, or made up, I guess, since the KJV translators invented words that they used in translation that, sho nuff, ended up in the BofM when the same text was translated.

An immediate answer occurs: if English didn't have the appropriate words, so the earlier translators invented them to more accurately convey the original intent--then shouldn't we expect them to show up?

Let's say I'm translating some ancient text, and it refers to a large animal with antlers, lives in the forest. I have no words, so I call it a "Moose." Three hundred years later, someone else uses "Moose" to describe a large animal with antlers.

Is it evidence that the second translator is wrong, and just made it up? Or did they use the word "Moose" because that is what was meant, and now the English language has the word "Moose?"

Perhaps the KJV just set the standard.

But I totally understand the problems some of you anti-Mormons have. It's a good thing you aren't believers in Christ, because I'm sure that Christ when He was on the Earth used the scriptures as generally accepted--not as He had dictated them. So Jesus did the same thing: used the generally accepted text when necessary.

You may now disclaim Jesus as a false prophet, and inspired of the devil.

By the way, our host discusses this issue at some length here on his site. You can cry plagiarism all you want, but it's clearly not.

Jeff, the New Testament did the same thing when citing the Old Testament. Some errors from the LXX ended up in the New Testament--even the words of an angel--Rev. 2:27. I personally like the BoM disclaimer that if there are mistakes, they're the mistakes of men.

Something to take into account in all of this: money. Joseph and others sunk a lot of money into this venture, and they wanted to make it back. When the time came to sell the book, their stories had to be straight if they wanted to make back their investments (each of the witnesses was a material investor in the writing of the book).It is easy to believe that Joseph had help creating the book from others in his family, including Oliver Cowdery, the most obvious candidate.When the whole venture went to Joseph's head and subsequently off the rails (polygamy, banking schemes, and, oh, destroying the presses in Nauvoo thereby throwing any respect for the US constitution out the window), it's no wonder the witnesses scattered/started their own off shoots.

Uh? Actually the presence of the KJV in the Book of Mormon is fully explained by the fact that Joseph used his own vocabulary and resources -- as explained in the Expansion Theory. What cannot be explained are Hebrew Covenant renewal festivals that actually meet with exactness no less than three places in the text the form of the ancient festival that were unknown until 1945 when Mendenhall first wrote about them; prophetic call forms followed exactly in the Book of Mormon that were not discussed until the early 1980s; the Hebrew legal procedures first discussed in the 1950s and a pretty darn exact account of where to find the way to Nahom.

Anonymous 9:12, why is it exactly that the number of non-LDS scholars who accept any of these apologetic claims is exactly zero?

There are thousands of scholars, among them Christians, Jews, Muslims, and atheists, who agree on a wide range of scholarship about the Bible. They agree on innumerable points concerning the textual scholarship, they agree on innumerable points on the archaeology.

Yet where is the non-Mormon scholar who buys the Expansion Theory? Who agrees that Joseph's odd "caractors" have anything remotely to do with either Hebrew, Egyptian, or anything in between? Who believe that the Book of Abraham papyrus is anything but an ordinary funerary document?

Why is it that after all this time, after all this effort by really smart guys like Welch and the rest, you guys can't convince the outside scholars?

Can it really be that all the others are wrong and you alone are right? Can it really be that all the world is blinded by prejudice, and Mormons alone can see clearly?

You want me to believe? Show me some evidence. I mean REAL evidence. (Sorry, Jeff, but 180-year-old statements that involve angels and divine apparitions don't count as "evidence." If you don't believe me, just try it on a jury sometime. Or ask yourself why you don't believe in the myriads of non-LDS, non-Christian miracles attested to through the ages. Because your miracles are so special?)

Show me the ruins of Zarahemla, confirmed by independent archaeologists. Show me the Middle Eastern DNA traces in Native American genes. Show me the linguistic traces of Hebrew in New World native languages.

Show me one instance of widespread, non-Mormon agreement on evidence for the authenticity of the BoM as an ancient text.

"Actually the presence of the KJV in the Book of Mormon is fully explained by the fact that Joseph used his own vocabulary and resources -- as explained in the Expansion Theory"

The problem is the it's not Smith's random vocabulary, as the Expansion theory and Jeff admit, Smith clearly used the KJV as source material along with the specific added words and errors to translate the BOM.

I agree with you there. The problem is that the KJV standard you mention shows up in a text that is claimed to be many hundreds of years older. And neither the Expansion theory or Jeff can explain it away.

"It's a good thing you aren't believers in Christ, because I'm sure that Christ when He was on the Earth used the scriptures as generally accepted"

Huh?? What does that have to do with the fact that Smith copied erroneous 1611 texts and used them in the BOM that was supposedly written hundreds of years earlier.

To Alma,

"the New Testament did the same thing when citing the Old Testament. Some errors from the LXX ended up in the New Testament"

Not only is this beside the point, the New Testament does not claim too be written BEFORE the Old Testament while containing the same errors. The BOM does exactly that in regards to the KJV.

Anon above me, you don't get it, do you? The problem is the same: The KJV translators were faced with translating the ancient text into English. English did not have the necessary words to properly convey the message. So they invented the words necessary to properly translate the passage.

Hundreds of years later, Joseph Smith is faced with the same or similar text (Heck, it is Isaiah! It's explicitly labeled as such. Why, pray tell, is it a surprise that it will look similar--it IS similar?) So, same or nearly the same original text. Same problem--but the solution already exists: The KJV translators have supplied the appropriate new words. Why the heck WOULDN'T it be almost identical? If two translators translate Lewis Carrol's poem "Jabberwocky" into German, aren't they going to come up with almost the same thing? If they don't, then one of them did a piss poor job, right?

In fact, that is a good example of what happened. Jabberwocky is filled with impossible to translate words, because German (or indeed, any language) doesn't have those words. So the first person to translate the poem into German had to make up some words. Are you accusing every translator since then of plagiarism, if their translations of the poem resemble the first--down to and including the made up words the first guy used? Does that automatically destroy their credentials as translators? According to you, it does. Once translated once, it can never, ever, ever happen again, right?

So what you're telling me is Joseph Smith translated the ancient text and added the exact same "clarifying" words AND errors used the KJV Bible?

Is this just an amazing coincidence?

Maybe not. You said "The KJV translators have supplied the appropriate new words"

So Smith copied the KJV while translating?

What does this do to the reliability of Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, Emma Smith and everyone else who say Joseph sealed his face into a hat and dictated "appearing words" to scribes with no Bible as reference?

I'll bite. If you look at the link I provided earlier (which you clearly have not), you will see that, in fact, the exact same words were not used. Only similar words were. It's not a cut and paste job, despite your claims.

I'll ask you this: If you are correct, and Joseph Smith just copied straight out of the Bible, then how did he get ships of Tarshish verse correct? Did he have the Greek Septuagint lying around? And, of course, he spoke Greek that early in his life too, right?

This is one of those discussions that always ends up the same way: what looks like a weakness of the Book of Mormon ("Alma is a female name! Joseph Smith was an idiot to have a man named that! Or "Land of Jerusalem--any fool knows Jesus was born in Bethlehem! Ha ha, what an idiot!) turns out to be a strength of the Book of Mormon. Those two parentheticals used to be strong attacks; not so much anymore.

Someone mentioned non Mormon scholars who believe. Good question. Why would a non Mormon scholar believe in the Book of Mormon, etc and not get baptized. I ask you--where are the Non Christian scholars who believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, started God's church, died, was resurrected the third day, and ascended to heaven as God the Son?

There are not any, right? If they believe all of that, they become a Christian.

What you are demanding is to find scientists who believe all the LDS claims.... but do not convert. In short, you want to find scientists who are, what? Cowards who cannot follow their convictions?

I'm sorry, but I think higher of most scientists than you do. In any case, the number of scientists who 1) have been exposed to detailed LDS claims and 2) have expertise in the field is small. Of that group, most of them are probably associated with FARMS, so of course you reject them out of hand.

Meosamerican archeology is far more difficult to study in large part because of the environmental conditions. The humidity and jungle have swallowed up the vast majority of any remnants of those that lived during the time of the Nephites. The Near East doesn't suffer this problem nearly as much because of how dry it is there, preserving far more for far longer.

The city of Chactun is a really great candidate for Zarahemla and until only a few years ago, was competely unknown. The location is in an extremely remote part of the Yucatan peninsula and hard to research, but the foundations of the main temple pyramid structures are said to be far larger than anything previously discovered.

You can do your own research on it, but here's an article from Huffington:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/mayan-city-chactun-discovered-mexico_n_3468502.html

"Fire Is Born" is an even more interesting find by archeologists. His story is remarkable because it takes place precisely around the time of the final battles of the Nephites between 380 and 420 AD. I highly recommend reading this article by National Geographic on the whole story, but here are some excerpts:

"Ancient inscriptions give the date as January 8, 378, and the stranger's name as Fire Is Born. He arrived in Waka, in present-day Guatemala, as an envoy from a great power in the highlands of Mexico."

"News of the advancing column must have reached Tikal, and somewhere along the stretch of riverbank and roadway, perhaps at a break in the cliffs about 16 miles (26 kilometers) from the city, Tikal's army tried to stop Fire Is Born's advance. Inscribed slabs, called stelae, later erected at Tikal suggest that the defenders were routed. Fire Is Born's forces continued their march on the city. By January 16, 378—barely a week after his arrival in Waka—the conqueror was in Tikal."

"In 426, Tikal took over Copán, 170 miles (274 kilometers) to the south in present-day Honduras, and crowned its own king, Kinich Yax Kuk Mo, who became the founder of a new dynasty."

You can go on reading the whole thing, but the entire episode matches the the last chapters of Mormon within just a few years and so precisely you'd think it was a story out of "Tennis Shoes Among the Nephites".

My main point is that Mesoamerican research is still in its infancy compared to Near Eastern research, partly because people have less interest in it, partly because a lack of tools to decipher language, and partly because of the remoteness and environment that has swallowed up so much.

New finds are discovered all the time in Central America. To say that the case is closed on Mesoamerican archeology as evidence for the Book of Mormon is like saying that the case is closed on the possibility of finding microbial life in our solar system.

Is that the link written by the same Jeff Lindsay who above frankly admitted "I don't have a good explanation for the presence of what appear to be KJV errors"?

Jeff doesn't know, but at least he can admit it

"how did he get ships of Tarshish verse correct?"

I personally believe he had help writing it. If Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery withheld the fact that Smith used the KJV Bible as proven by the errors found in both, they're testimony falls into question and most likely provided additional reference.

I personally believe he had help writing it. If Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery withheld the fact that Smith used the KJV Bible as proven by the errors found in both, they're testimony falls into question and most likely provided additional reference.

That's hard to believe since both Cowdery and Harris left the church (the latter being excommunicated). If they had helped create the fraud, I couldn't imagine anyone letting Smith get away with it after they left. But they're all on the record (including Whitmer who never did return) for never denying what they saw.

A lot of people underplay that, but this lends incredible weight to the veracity of the Book of Mormon.

I'm not too familiar with claim that mistakes from the KJV crept into the Book of Mormon passages, but I would like to see more specifics on it. If they are indeed true modern mistakes, my personal theory is that Joseph did use the Bible at times to help as a shortcut after he saw that Nephi was including entire passages from the Bible.

While I would be disappointed in Joseph for taking such shortcuts, I can allow for such mistakes in the BoM because they were the mistakes of men, which the preface points out quite clearly.

And for those who would say that I'm simply allowing for errors when its convenient, until I see someone give me a half decent explanation for how Joseph produced the entire thing with its chiasmus, hebraisms, and everything else in between at the "ripe and wizened" age of 24, the weight for the Book of Mormon being just what Joseph claimed it was far outweighs the claim of its critics.

@illuminated, an explanation that assumes miracles will, by definition, always be more difficult to belief. It will also be the most difficult thing to prove, because, again by definition, a miracle is "the thing least likely to have happened."

To be specific, the BoM uses King James archaisms. This is very apparent with animal names. The King James Version often refers to dragons, unicorns and satyrs.

Later research has uncovered the truth behind the Hebrew names, and most modern English Bibles no longer refer to such creatures. But II Nephi 23:22 contains a reference to dragons. "And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces..."

This is a quotation from KJV Isaiah 13:22. Most modern translations now have jackals for dragons, and hyenas for wild beasts.

II Nephi 21 also has a reference to KJV satyrs. "But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there...and satyrs shall dance there" This word "satyrs" is now correctly translated "wild goats" in most modern translations.

King James archaisms are not limited to animal names. KJV apparel words show up in II Nephi 13:18-23

"In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments, and cauls, and round tires like the moon; The chains and the bracelets, and the mufflers; The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the ear-rings; The rings, and nose jewels; The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping-pins; The glasses, and the fine linen, and hoods, and the veils.'

Although these terms are, for the most part, correctly translated in King James Version English, it is almost certain that neither Joseph Smith nor his intended audience had any idea what they meant. The King James Version committee translated this passage using words from their own era, which reflected the fashion of the day. Two hundred years later, in the early nineteenth century, on a different continent, these words were mostly obsolete.

The word "strait" in Matthew 7:14 "...strait is the gate, and narrow is the way" Joseph Smith thought, as did most English readers, that `strait' is simply a variant spelling of `straight'. In fact, it is not. The word `strait', in this context, means `restricted' or `difficult'. But the first edition of the Book of Mormon uses the word `straight' when it quotes Matthew in III Nephi 14:14. In fact, the 1830 version of the Book of Mormon uses the word `straight' every time that `strait' is meant. (See, for example, I Nephi 21:20, where the King James Version of Isaiah 49:20 has `strait'. The word `straight' makes no sense in this context.) Most of these were corrected in subsequent BoM versions.

I John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.' This verse has almost NO GREEK manuscript support, and is generally considered to be a late interpolation. Nevertheless, this text seems to have inspired one or two quotations in the Book of Mormon. II Nephi 31:21 reads `...and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God...'. Mormon 7:7 reads `...to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God..."

Mormon chapter 9:22-24 and Ether 4:18 are part of the so-called long ending of Mark 16:15-18 generally thought to be a late addition to the Marcan text. Neither the Siniaticus nor the Vaticanus, the two oldest Greek texts, have this ending.

If Joseph Smith used Biblical reference, as it appears to be the case (even Jeff will admit), why WOULDN'T he get reference for chiasmus and hebraisms?

That's my point. How can Harris, Cowdery, FAIR and every LDS apologists say he didn't use a Bible, then when it's proven that he did, you all says "oh, I guess he did use a Bible, what's the big deal?"

But that's my point. Do I really need to explain this simple logic to you?

How can the anti-Mormons' claim that Joseph plagiarized the KJV Bible and then in the same breath use FAIR to show that he didn't when I've just given a reasonable explanation for how some King Jamesisms could have found their way into the translation?

If the sword cuts me both ways, it cuts you as well. It's a poor argument to use if it strikes yourself at the same time you use it against the Book of Mormon.

You see, I don't need "proof" the Book of Mormon is true. I know it is without any. But you need proof that it isn't. Therefore the burden is on you to back it up without Faith.

Again, the burden of proof is on you. You need it to make yourself feel better about all of this. The difference is that I don't need it.

The irony, however, is that my arguments of proof are far stronger than yours. You would have us all believe that Joseph never had the Bible yet he plagiarized from it to create the Book of Mormon. That is some very strange logic, my friend.

He surely had access to one in order to read the passage which led him to pray in the sacred grove. Whether or not he "owned" it doesn't make much difference to me. He had access to plenty I'm sure.

But then if he used one to copy passages from, where did he obtain the corrections which were put into the passages in the Book of Mormon?

You don't have an answer for this and you don't have an answer for why Harris, Cowdery and Whitmer never denied their testimony after all three left the church. And you yourself admit that Joseph didn't own a copy of the Bible. But we're all supposed to throw those facts out the window and accept that Joseph merely copied from the Bible.

Hey Jeff what happened to the "intelligent comments here. Insults are discouraged"

nice way to discuss a topic, Illuminated.

You're putting words in my mouth

My premise is that Joseph did in fact have a copy of a Bible when he wrote the Bom. The witnesses said he did not, so they're unreliable. I've proven that he had one by the fact that KJV errors show up in his translation of the Bom. Jeff admitted Smith used a Bible as the baseline even though he originally said the translation was "unaided by other resources according to his scribes and others"

My point is FAIR, the witnesses and Jeff said he did not have a Bible when he wrote the BoM and I contend that he did.

It's funny how much you're arguing when you said yourself "I don't need "proof" the Book of Mormon is true. I know it is without any"

You can't argue with blind faith so why are you here? What does it matter to you? You'll believe anything you're fed anyways, you just admitted it

My premise is that Joseph did in fact have a copy of a Bible when he wrote the Bom.

But you said you agree with FAIR which says he didn't. Or didn't own one? Was borrowing one? I'm confused. Please clarify what you mean. You seem to change your side on this with every post.

The witnesses said he did not, so they're unreliable.

So you disagree with FAIR now? So confused...

I've proven that he had one by the fact that KJV errors show up in his translation of the Bom.

That's your idea of "proof" huh? If that's proof, then I've "proven" Joseph translated the Book of Mormon from Gold Plates.

I don't think you know what proof means. There is absolutely no physical proof one way or another about how the Book of Mormon came about. We have "evidences", sure, but hard proof? It doesn't exist. Take your "proof" into a court of law and see how long it lasts.

Jeff admitted Smith used a Bible as the baseline even though he originally said the translation was "unaided by other resources according to his scribes and others"

What is this admiration of Jeff as some sort of final arbitrator of truth? He's just an average Mormon guy looking for interesting tidbits for evidence of Book of Mormon authenticity. I like reading his stuff, but please stop with the Jeff worship, he has no more scholarly weight on the subject than my Sunday school teacher.

My point is FAIR, the witnesses and Jeff said he did not have a Bible when he wrote the BoM and I contend that he did.

Good for you. You contend he did. Wow, what an insight. What do you want me to say, award you with a cookie?

Seriously, there is nothing you've said that I haven't heard a hundred times over. There are many passages that are -similar- to those in the Bible found in the Book of Mormon, yet there are very important differences like the Hebraisms and the "Ships of Tarshish" example which couldn't possibly have been found in the KJV Bible.

What you've stated changes absolutely none of those facts.

It's funny how much you're arguing when you said yourself "I don't need "proof" the Book of Mormon is true. I know it is without any"

What is funny about that? I have faith in God. I have a strong testimony that this is God's Church upon the Earth. I know that through the whisperings of the Holy Ghost. I don't need these arguments to make it true for me. It already is true. Perhaps you will find that it is exactly what it claims to be during this life or after, but it doesn't matter. I can only hope you do eventually soften your heart and listen to the Spirit before "that ye would hearken unto my words, and cast off your sins, and not procrastinate the day of your repentance".

But that being said there are plenty of great "evidences" (not proof) that this is all exactly what it claims to be. I love arguing it, as does Jeff and so does FAIR.

In light of the mountains of evidence for the Book of Mormon, AND in the light of the Spirit of the Holy Ghost, you still fight against it. That takes more blind Faith than me. That takes more denial and eye-covering than it requires me to believe.

That's why non and Anti-Mormons fight so hard against us, because the Spirit burns them in the light of the truth. They can leave it, but they can't leave it alone because the truth hurts.

I've always just found it so fascinating how much time and energy non-Mormons spend out of their day trying to bash Mormons. I'm honestly curious, what exactly drives you to spend so much time trying to hurt someone's method of believing in God?

If someone tells me they love to go jogging to find peace, should I then run along next to them yelling at them, trying to trip them up and try to ruin their day? Of course not! Why should it bother me that someone else's method of relaxation is different than mine?

Seriously. What drives the bitter and incessant hate for Mormons by so many non-members? Do you see Mormons showing up at Methodist or Baptist conventions with signs protesting them? What purpose does that serve for anyone? Do they believe that minds will truly be changed by shouting at them and arguing with them?

I get that Mormon Missionaries proselyte, but peacefully knocking on someone's door doesn't compare to the people who have nothing better to do than hang out on Mormon blogs trying to ruin someone's faith.

A person's faith is deeply personal, it was founded upon Spiritual promptings. Why does it need to be a game for someone else to screw with? Why would hurting someone's personal belief bring you joy? If it does, perhaps you should look a little closer at the kind of person you have become.

A person that finds joy in simply tearing down another has a much larger problem no matter how wacky the other person's Faith may seem. Scientology is pretty strange to me, but I couldn't understand why someone would feel the need to hurt someone because they believe differently than you.

If you want to convert someone to your own Faith, that's fine, but argue your own belief, make it enticing for them to join you. Tearing someone else down for your own enjoyment has nothing to do with conversion.

Seeing so much bitter hate and animosity by non-Mormons, it's not difficult to understand why we believe the words of Joseph Smith ring true when he said that people can leave the church, but they can't leave it alone.

It actually strengthens my testimony when I see this by anti-Mormons. It tells me that they have been, at some point, touched by the Spirit. But for whatever reason have chosen to deny it. The opposite of love for something is not hate, it's indifference. Hate for something means you have something invested personally in it. It's true when you really think about it.

Those that hate the Church have had something invested into it. They have had a glimmer of hope or truth in it and now that angers them. It's like a person has for their ex-wife or husband. They loved them once, and maybe deep down, they still do. It's that something ruined that love and now it bites them to the core.

It would scare me if anti-Mormons weren't constantly attacking us. Because it would mean that they truly were indifferent of our Faith, it meant that no Spirit was there to touch them. The true Church of God would mean Satan would be doing all he could day and night to attack it, and that brings me comfort knowing that I must be in the right place.

Anonymous 4:28 claimed: "The word "strait" in Matthew 7:14 "...strait is the gate, and narrow is the way" Joseph Smith thought, as did most English readers, that `strait' is simply a variant spelling of `straight'."

You really have no idea what "Joseph Smith thought" about the words straight/strait. This was a dictated text. Joseph Smith didn't edit any of it until 1837. It's as likely that Joseph Smith perceived them as homophones--as many Americans today aren't exactly sure about which spelling is correct.

You assume that it is a given that Joseph Smith "copied the Bible." That position isn't consistent with all the facts. If he "copied" it, why are there hundreds of variations in Joseph's "copied" text? For example, Matthew 5 appears in 3 Ne. 12. Out of 48 verses, only one is the same as the KJV. Every other verse was changed in the 1830 edition. If you compare that same chapter against Webster's translation I surmise you'd have more correspondences that the BoM. Obviously, he didn't copy--otherwise they'd be the same.

"'the New Testament did the same thing when citing the Old Testament. Some errors from the LXX ended up in the New Testament'

Not only is this beside the point, the New Testament does not claim too be written BEFORE the Old Testament while containing the same errors. The BOM does exactly that in regards to the KJV."

It isn't beside the point because the New Testament was doing precisely what the Book of Mormon was doing: Quoting the Old Testament and citing a text that was newer--and less accurate than the original. Good grief, Mormonsn doesn't claim that the translation of the BoM is older than the KJV. Is it that difficult to perceive that when a translator quotes an ancient source it's acceptable to use contemporaneous language? If the New Testament authors did it, why is Joseph Smith faulted for doing the same thing?

I've never changed my side. I'll say it again, read it slowly. I was not agreeing with FAIR, but actually pointing out the contradiction that FAIR and Jeff say Smith never had a Bible, "unaided by other resources according to his scribes and others" BUT Jeff then changes his story and admits "It seems pretty clear that the KJV language was used in the translation"

does that make sense?

My point is because the witnesses are unreliable about Smith's translation and calls into question the origins of the LDS church

It's funny because you want it both ways. You'll argue historical/scientific evidence when it helps your case but declare blind faith when backed into a corner.

The Truth hurts? Your truth is based on a feeling! I reject the prophet Joseph Smith because when placed under scrutiny, his claim of reforming gospel don't hold up. He has no authority to correct the Word of God, no authority to the priesthood and no authority to reinstating his own version of the Law. But this is based on intellectual investigation, not a feeling or whisper. I don't trust my feelings, that's why God gave us intellect to investigate the claims of so-called prophets

Is it just me or is illuminated appearing to debate two "anonymous" posters at once, thinking they're the same person? I'm on his side regarding whether the Book of Mormon is true or not, but I think he might be getting confused about who he's talking to. Which is an argument for posting under some pseudonym other than "anonymous" so we can all keep it straight who we're talking to.

"I'm honestly curious, what exactly drives you to spend so much time trying to hurt someone's method of believing in God?"

The thing that frustrates me about the LDS faith is the legalistic pressure placed on members to gain salvation. Young people sent off, unprepared, often far from home and scared. Told they cannot attain to the highest levels of heaven unless they obey. Girls back home encouraged to only marry mission-returned boys. I talk to these boys all the time when they come to my door, and I feel sorry for the ones who confess they were home, but cannot say anything, it's just sad

"Which is an argument for posting under some pseudonym other than "anonymous" so we can all keep it straight who we're talking to."

It does make it difficult to debate when the other person can simply be whomever he wants to be. The same "anonymous" person could show up as 20 different people to make it appear his argument has a lot of supporters. We simply can't know who it is.

"The thing that frustrates me about the LDS faith is the legalistic pressure placed on members to gain salvation. Young people sent off, unprepared, often far from home and scared. Told they cannot attain to the highest levels of heaven unless they obey. Girls back home encouraged to only marry mission-returned boys. I talk to these boys all the time when they come to my door, and I feel sorry for the ones who confess they were home, but cannot say anything, it's just sad"

If you feel this way, show them love. Show them a "better way" through compassion and friendship. But that's not the strategy of Anti-Mormon's. Their strategy is always to hurt and attack.

If you truly felt "sad", don't hurt them more by tearing them apart. Show them that you care about them and at least entertain their convictions. If you feel you know of a better way, show it to them kindly and with love.

I've never posted here without a name. I've posted under a couple different names before, but I always keep myself consistent on the same comments section.

I feel like if you want people to take you seriously. If you want people to feel that you are putting your true argument out there, you will stand with a name behind it. Anonymity shows that you're ashamed to stand by your arguments.

If someone feels like they need to try to hide behind an anonymous title, then I feel it should be fine for me to lump their argument together with another anonymous poster. If you haven't the stones to author your own words, I can attach any author I want to them can't I?

Sorry, Illuminated, if it sounded like I was calling you out. I didn't suspect you've ever posted without a name. I was more expressing my frustration that I can never tell which anonymous is which. I think I've lumped arguments together before too for that very reason.

I don't feel I was tearing anyone apart here. This is a forum "not just for mormons" I never insulted anyone, called anyone a fool, or labeled them "anti-whatever"I see contradictions and unnecessary Law with in the LDS faith and express my opinion. But it's never out of hate and bitterness as some my express it. I love the missionaries whio visit me, we have dinner and nice conversation. I feel bad for the pressure they're under to perform and they message they're told to keep at it and "maybe after you die you'll be saved" as one young man confessed to me

BTW, I was once labeled "Flying Fig" as a joke by Jeff, you can call me that

I wonder which missionaries have felt like they can't say anything about feeling homesick (I assume that's what you meant.) On my mission there were plenty of missionaries who expressed that feeling. I felt it too sometimes. Never felt like I couldn't talk about it with my mission president, companion, etc, though. I don't think my fellow missionaries felt that way either, and I don't think we should use homesickness or fear as reasons not to do something. These experiences bring powerful growth, whether we're talking about missions, college, study abroad, moving for a new job, getting married (and thus potentially moving), or anything else you can think of.

Also, a mission is not required for exaltation. My dad did not serve a mission, yet he has been endowed and sealed in the temple.

Attacking the tenets of one's Faith is attempting tearing apart their Faith. It's certainly not a forum just for Mormons, but I still don't understand why so many Anti-Mormons (Yes, "Anti-Mormons"), feel the need to visit a forum and attack someone's faith like you're (poorly) doing.

Oh and I can assure you that the Missionaries feel far more bad for you than you feel for them. I've met few Missionaries that didn't love the experience of their Mission.

I was a missionary, I served in Lima Peru. We used to make jokes at our Zone meetings about the Anti-Mormons who would consistently invite us over but absolutely make no head-way into learning the truth. I taught an Evangelical Missionary for a while who simply wanted to have us over for conversation. Of course we would entertain his desires for a while, but people like that have no true interest in the truth, just agitating it.

Ryan, I realize it's not required, but we both know there's quite a lot of peer pressure to go and you'll be treated differently if you don't. A co-worker told me she'd never date a guy who didnt go on a mission. There's a stigma to those who don't go. I feel there's a lot of man made pressure to do things that Christ never intended

The truth is, like I said above, Anti-Mormons have been touched by the truth at some point in their lives. This makes them angry because they have made mistakes in life (or continue making) that prevent them from holding to all of the ordinances and convenants of the Gospel.

As a missionary, in 99.9% of cases, this was what I found to be true. It was the cigarette, the beer, the girls, etc, that kept them from joining us. The arguments against about Joseph Smith, the BoM and everything else was a facade. The truth is that they could easily get past all that and join if it weren't for the obedience issues.

You see, people like "Flying Pig" (it would be nice if you used that name in your title if that's what you want to be called, btw) are attracted to us. They are attracted to the light inside the LDS members. But they can't get past certain things to let them join. It really comes down to pride, ultimately.

I felt helpless at times as a missionary. Here we were with so much truth and so many people who were blinded by the world who wouldn't accept it. It made me feel sorry for them. My companions and I spent many hours on our knees praying for people to open their hearts and humble themselves.

The Gospel brings so much joy and happiness into my life, I couldn't imagine it without it. Peace is a good word for it. I have peace in my heart about my life and what happens after it.

Didn't see you post that before me. Good job on putting your name up. See we can make head-way into changing Anti-Mormons! :)

"A co-worker told me she'd never date a guy who didn't go on a mission."

Good for her. My wife was the same way when we met before my mission. Worthy Priesthood holders are the best men I've ever met. When I was in South America, it's common to find wards with about 2/3 to 3/4 of the membership to be women. The "machismo" there is so strong that many men are drunks and beat their wives. Finding a good man there to marry is really tough.

We need more returned missionaries, men who can at least partially measure up to the special woman they are to marry. A woman who wants to marry a man like that is a woman who is following the tenets of God and wants her man to be someone who loves and respects her, someone who is valiant and obedient to God.

"I feel there's a lot of man made pressure to do things that Christ never intended "

If you look at the things Jesus asked in his time, they were far more difficult than what His modern Church asks today. Take the rich young man, for example. Jesus asked people to drop everything in their lives for His sake, -everything-. That's not man-made, that's God made. Following God is not always easy, it's a path least traveled. It's a path that requires the sacrifice of all things.

"is it? I'm sorry if your faith cannot be discussed and defended on a public forum. "

My faith is discussed by me, attacked by you. That's the difference. Let's get the language straight. It's a nice thought, but Anti-Mormons have no intention to "discuss" our Faith.

"Hmmm, so much for the love you encourage me to show."

Hey, we can joke about and love you at the same time. What's wrong with jokes?

"If it's truth you're after, why the condescending jokes and labels for those who may have a different view?"

They weren't condescending jokes. Just jokes. A little levity makes a difficult situation a little more palatable. Joseph Smith used a lot of levity in dealing with Anti-Mormons.

Not a "different" view. The wrong view. Your view of us is wrong, not different. Love is love, but truth is also truth. I won't sugarcoat it. It's just that those who refuse to accept the gospel, "taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center." I can't help that.

"Wow, way to lump people together. Do you everything about me if I said I was mexican, too?

You're showing an ugly side, Illuminated."

I'm going to ignore the first part of that. Not sure what you were trying to say there as you mistyped it, but it sounded awfully like you were calling me a racist. I won't respond to personal attacks like that. Then again, it's not surprising. Most Anti-Mormon's end up in the ad hominim when things go sour for them. Is throwing around charges of racism your idea of a "discussion" too?

I've never insulted you or lumped you with anyone else. I've treated you with respect and nothing else. I happen to disagree with you on topics of the Gospel. I express my point of view and you label me and resort to name calling. You've made a strong case for joining your Church

These Federal Judges "hew" neither to the Constitution nor God. If it were the Constitution, Gay Marriage would have been legal since 1868 when the 14th Amendment was created. It wouldn't have taken 146 years to realize that mistake.

No, this has nothing to do with the Constitution. This is just social pressure and re-interpretation of the 14th to fit their needs.

There is definitely pressure for young men to go on missions, I won't argue with that. I even agree that sometimes its too much and the pressure that us stupid mortals put on young men can sometimes drive them further away. That doesn't mean pressure is always a bad thing, though. In appropriate doses it can induce someone on the cusp to make a good decision. That applies to more than just missions, of course.

Personally I think there aren't as many people being overly pressured as some would have us believe, though. I suspect we hear the stories of the relative few who do get overpressured and snap a lot more than we hear stories from the vast majority who either chose to go without pressure, or who just needed the nudge. I don't have data on that, so you can correct me if you do, but it needs to be hard data rather than anecdotal evidence.

Along the same lines, there are certainly some young women who say they will only marry an RM. I think this generally tends toward wanting the attributes that an RM is expected to posses- devotion to the Savior, knowledge of the scriptures, a certain added maturity. Of course, some RM's fail to achieve these things and some who don't go on missions for whatever reason can achieve these attributes. I think women are smart enough to realize that it's these attributes they seek more than the title, even if they don't think about it at the time they say what your co-worker said. The case in point would be my mom, who married my dad despite his lack of a mission, and despite the fact that she had intended to marry an RM. Of course, that is anecdotal and may not represent the general scenario. If you have actual data to refute me I would be happy to entertain it.